I’m a Liberal Feminist Lawyer. Here’s Why Democrats Should Support Judge Kavanaugh.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Sometimes a superstar is just a superstar. That is the case with Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who had long been considered the most qualified nominee for the Supreme Court if Republicans secured the White House. The Senate should confirm him.
I have argued 35 cases before the Supreme Court, more than any other woman. I worked in the Solicitor General’s Office for 13 years during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. Because I am a liberal Democrat and feminist, I expect my friends on the left will criticize me for speaking up for Kavanaugh. But we all benefit from having smart, qualified and engaged judges on our highest court, regardless of the administration that nominates them.
What happened to Merrick Garland was a disgrace. His nomination was the Democratic equivalent of Kavanaugh’s. Garland, too, is brilliant, admired, experienced, sober and humane. Indeed, Kavanaugh himself called Garland “supremely qualified” for the Supreme Court. That he made that statement while Garland’s nomination was pending—and was the subject of intense partisan warfare—says a great deal about Kavanaugh’s character.
But unless the Democrats want to stand on the principle of an eye for an eye—and I don’t think they should—folks should stop pretending that Kavanaugh or his record is the issue. He is supremely qualified. Although this fact is distressing, Republicans control both the White House and Senate. In comparable circumstances, when President Barack Obama was in office, our party appointed two justices to the Supreme Court.
I first met Kavanaugh in 2009, shortly after I left the Solicitor General’s Office. He spontaneously emailed to say he liked an article I had written for The Green Bag , an irreverent legal magazine, about my experience arguing in front of the Supreme Court. I had just started my own appellate practice, and his note was extremely thoughtful.
Months later, I asked Kavanaugh to join a panel at Georgetown Law School to review a film about college debate. He responded that he knew nothing about debate but nevertheless was happy to help. When a law student asked him how debate had shaped his career, he answered: “I actually never debated, but I did play football, and the two are basically the same.” He then offered this advice: “Practice, learn to get along with all of your teammates, learn from your mistakes, and have fun.” It was clear that judge cared about mentoring and teaching law students and was invested in helping others to succeed.
I do not have a single litmus test for a nominee. My standard is whether the nominee is unquestionably well-qualified, brilliant, has integrity and is within the mainstream of legal thought. Kavanaugh easily meets those criteria. I have no insight into his views on Roe v. Wade —something extremely important to me as a liberal, female Democrat and mother of a teenage girl. But whatever he decides on Roe , I know it will be because he believes the Constitution requires that result.
It’s easy to forget that the 41 Republican senators who voted to confirm Ginsburg knew she was a solid vote in favor of Roe , but nonetheless voted for her because of her overwhelming qualifications. Just as a Democratic nominee with similar credentials and mainstream legal views deserves to be confirmed, so too does Kavanaugh—not because he will come out the way I want in each case or even most cases, but because he will do the job with dignity, intelligence, empathy and integrity.
Democrats should quit attacking Kavanaugh—full stop. It is unbecoming to block him simply because they want to, and they risk alienating intelligent people who see the obvious: He is the most qualified conservative for the job.
Lisa Blatt heads the Supreme Court practice at Arnold & Porter. She has argued 35 cases before the Supreme Court. These are her personal views.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
75 visitors
Lisa Blatt, thank you for that article
The country needs more like her.
I doubt I agree with her on much of anything, but shes an adult.
You know what I'm wondering and what this woman doesn't say in this article...... whether she is pro life.......
It doesn't matter what she "claims" her political affiliation is. What matters is what she believes when it comes to women's rights and the right to choose.
It's very telling that she makes no mention what her views are regarding pro choice/pro life.
Her criteria is spelled out in the quote. It's a pretty good, non-political criteria, as it should be.
No, it's NOT. She's dancing around the issue and throwing out crap that makes her look reasonable but she doesn't come out and reveal what her personal views are with respect to pro life/choice.
He's been vetted and offered up by the PRO LIFE community. Every woman understands what that means to her individually. I bet you $1 she is pro life.
It shouldn't matter for her or for a justice. A good justice will decide something based on the law even if it goes against what he would prefer.
Probably because he worked the Bush White House and they see him as a conservative. But a truly conservative justice can surprise you by adhering to the Constitution.
SCOTUS hears and decides on many more issues than that singularly myopic focus.
I admit that the same question crossed my mind when I read the article.
SEE!!!! I could've been a lawyer!
However, that could be because, same as with Dershowitz and any unbiased lawyer, she would never let her personal feelings interfere with her judgment and legal opinions.
sigh ......I thought we were having a moment Buzz.
One lawyer to another ( wannabe lawyer ) aka/smart person.
Hey PJ, I don't dislike you. I never said you could not have become a lawyer - you just didn't have the benefit of my law school Dean's first lecture.
Thanks Buzz. In all honesty, I don't think I have what it takes to be a lawyer. I'd probably get disbarred.
Oh, I don't know. When I was actively practising law I did some things that would probably have gotten me disbarred, but I ended up resigning from my Law Society due mostly to unwanted stress in my late 60s after 37 years of practising law.
So she has no litmus test on nominations just uses her intuition on qualifications. Ok Sure.
Lets just say that her little spiel that basically said nothing did not change my mind.
Well, that would be really important because the senate will count your confirmation vo.......oh wait.....
I honestly could care less who is appointed to the SCOTUS, as long as they rule based on the law and not their personal opinions? I am good with it. It was a right leaning SCOTUS that passed same sex marriage and made abortions legal in the first place.
On the subject of abortions?
If you don't like them, don't get one. You manage your body, let others manage theirs. Simple as that. What ANYONE does with their own body is their own business.
For fucks sakes, most of the right yells and screams that they don't want the government in their lives then trip over themselves trying to get the government to regulate vagina's.
I had sworn I would never respond to any comment you ever made, but I have to break my promise to myself and agree with that comment. I guess you're not ALWAYS wrong.
In seeing the direction of this conversation and the way the author's fellow progressives and so called "feminists" questioned her immediately in the first posts, I have to give her credit. It was a true act of courage on the part of Ms Blatt in writing this article.
I thought feminism was about women thinking for themselves?
She made a persuasive argument for giving Mr Kavanaugh the vote:
"My standard is whether the nominee is unquestionably well-qualified, brilliant, has integrity and is within the mainstream of legal thought. Kavanaugh easily meets those criteria. I have no insight into his views on Roe v. Wade—something extremely important to me as a liberal, female Democrat and mother of a teenage girl. But whatever he decides on Roe, I know it will be because he believes the Constitution requires that result."
As a retired lawyer, I agree entirely with her opinion. I don't think politics should even be considered when appointing a Supreme Court judge, it should be a person with a brilliant legal mind - that is why I personally think that a person like Alan Dershowitz should serve on the highest court. Not only is he academically qualified, an emeritus law professor at Harvard Law School, but a court lawyer who was able to successfully defend accused persons in the most difficult cases to win - Klaus Von Bulow and O.J.Simpson. He is a brilliant lawyer, and if Kavanaugh is the kind of person described by the author, even though he may be politically or religiously in favour of reversing Roe vs Wade, if he is the person as described, I don't think he will.
He has a strong record and figures to be an excellent justice.
Hopefully the Dems and a few Republicans will stand firm and not allow any more Trump nominees to be confirmed.